Why are we not doing this...

[ThatJa]

Going for players like McCormack, Davenport. These are GOOD players and we aint even in the hunt. Leeds are in for both, and they don't exactly have the most free spending chairman ever in Ken Bates who bought Chelsea for £1 and has probably spent less than £1,000,000 whilst hes owned Leeds.

Jheez

 

[SwissBlade]

Because we're a very, very bad club and we never go for GOOD players because we'd ruin them

 

[Foxy]

At a guess, despite the fact you don't know who and who we aren't enquiring about, I'd imagine the following reasons for us not being overly keen:

• Davenport - Was on over 20k a week at West Ham, attracts trouble and was stabbed in the legs.
• McCormack - Smashed his car up drink driving after they beat us 4-3, probably cost us £8/9k a week minimum

 

[Pollingtonblade]

so there both bad players who we shouldn't consider?

 

[Foxy]

so there both bad players who we shouldn't consider?

Nope, but they are both players who will probably get offered more than we can afford elsewhere and both have baggage/issues which probably put off the men that matter.

I realise the key word there is "probably", but like I said, I'd imagine they would be the reasons that we "probably" aren't interested in them.

 

[Sensiblade]

All I have to ask is why do you still have money grabbing judas Kenny on as you sig picture JL94x4?

 

[raul]

Did notice Steadinho go to Bristol C on loan earlier today. Think he could have given the place a lift.

 

[Blade Blade]

Nope, but they are both players who will probably get offered more than we can afford elsewhere and both have baggage/issues which probably put off the men that matter.

I realise the key word there is "probably", but like I said, I'd imagine they would be the reasons that we "probably" aren't interested in them.

Why will they 'probably' get offered more money elsewhere? Any reason why Leeds would have more money than us when they haven't been in the Premier League for six or so years?

 

[Sensiblade]

Why will they 'probably' get offered more money elsewhere? Any reason why Leeds would have more money than us when they haven't been in the Premier League for six or so years?

Because they went into administration, got their debt's wiped out, shafted the people they owed money too, sold the ground. Oh and might have been paying the players using offshore accounts so as to avoid paying tax ( May or may not be true, just a rumour )

anyone got any others to add?

 

[cooperblade]

Going for players like McCormack, Davenport. These are GOOD players and we aint even in the hunt. Leeds are in for both, and they don't exactly have the most free spending chairman ever in Ken Bates who bought Chelsea for £1 and has probably spent less than £1,000,000 whilst hes owned Leeds.

Jheez

Leeds have been linked with a lot of players over the summer (Chris Morgan, Gary Hooper etc etc) but so far the list of players they've signed doesn't look much like the list of players they've signed. That's probably why there's an active campaign to get Bates out at Elland Road.

 

[SwissBlade]

Why will they 'probably' get offered more money elsewhere? Any reason why Leeds would have more money than us when they haven't been in the Premier League for six or so years?

Because they never learnt from their over spending

 

[cooperblade]

Why will they 'probably' get offered more money elsewhere? Any reason why Leeds would have more money than us when they haven't been in the Premier League for six or so years?

Bates very proudly states that they have £4m in the bank. How much have they spent this summer though and how much did they raise by selling the training ground, Fabian Delph etc. If they've got more money than us, it's more likely (allegedly) to fund Bates' Monaco home than a spending spree on players.

No huge problem with people having a pop at McCabe, think a Leeds shaped stick is a strange weapon to use though

 

[Rattly Noise]

Believe it or not, not every player wants to play for us. Some like other clubs. I know it's a strange concept but it's true.

 

[SwissBlade]

Believe it or not, not every player wants to play for us. Some like other clubs. I know it's a strange concept but it's true.

Is that because we're an evil club witholding the information on the freehold owner, intent on destroying over 120 years of football with evil soldiers such as Monty, Taylor, Quinn and Chedwyn...all to fund McCabes evil retirement plan to keep himself and his family rich at the expense of Sheffield United FC and the freehold

 

[beightonblade]

Is that because we're an evil club witholding the information on the freehold owner, intent on destroying over 120 years of football with evil soldiers such as Monty, Taylor, Quinn and Chedwyn...all to fund McCabes evil retirement plan to keep himself and his family rich at the expense of Sheffield United FC and the freehold

that might be nearer the truth than most people think

 

[Jon Bon]

that might be nearer the truth than most people think

Hmmm, now I don't particularly go in for conspiracy theories myself but it does make you wonder......

 

[SwissBlade]

that might be nearer the truth than most people think

I think its completely true only evil players want to play for evil Sheffield United

 

[Sensiblade]

I think its completely true only evil players want to play for evil Sheffield United

So that'd have McCabe sat in his high backed chair holding his cat, in his underground volcano lair, while laughing manically while plotting to take over the world!

On the cheap of course!

 

[SteelCity Blade]

Why will they 'probably' get offered more money elsewhere? Any reason why Leeds would have more money than us when they haven't been in the Premier League for six or so years?

Because they went into administration, got their debt's wiped out, shafted the people they owed money too, sold the ground. Oh and might have been paying the players using offshore accounts so as to avoid paying tax ( May or may not be true, just a rumour )

anyone got any others to add?

I'll add something to it

In regard to football clubs buying players whilst operating in debt, in a lot of cases the debt bares no relevance to this type of investment. Nearly all clubs nowadays are carrying debt (most enourmous) as we well know. This doesnt stop clubs buying players and spending money on big wages....just look at Cardiff.

As mentioned already they went into administration anyway but for the purpose of making a point what I'm saying is that it doesnt matter if they have more or less debt than us, they could still conceivably afford to spend more money on players....

Chairmen/directors find ways of bank rolling transfers or bigger wage budgets, either out of their own pocket if they're wealthy enough; Or they simply find some other stream of income (e.g. sponsorship/ loan or external investment) to spend this money whilst the club's day to day earnings pays the debt off or just the interest on it if you're Wednesday

It is important not to confuse the situation in thinking that a club in more debt cant spend as much as you because the accounts are often not directly relevant. Liverpool are in far more debt than us....but does that mean we can afford bigger transfer fees and wages than them?

Sadly football clubs are allowed to operate with as much debt as they want and spend money....for as long as they can sustain it. Its one of the massive problems in the modern game.

 

[SwissBlade]

So that'd have McCabe sat in his high backed chair holding his cat, in his underground volcano lair, while laughing manically while plotting to take over the world!

On the cheap of course!

Can you tell I watched two Bond films this weekend

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Because they never learnt from their over spending

What's to learn when you don't really get punished?


Further confirmation see Cardiff.

 

[Toronto Blade]

Exactly FB,a tea lady could get Cardiff up this season with that squad and they are laughing at all the Championship clubs as they do it.

 

[super_pig]

we can't go for players like that because they aren't injured